Santorum’s book doesn’t deal with foreign policy but does set out his approach to domestic policy: an active use of federal power and of the tax code to promote traditional behaviors and to preserve man-woman marriages.

Unlike Tea Party activists, Santorum doesn’t shrink away from the federal government; he wants to use it to nudge people toward more virtuous behavior, which he thinks will be best taught in traditional heterosexual families.

He says, “Liberals believe that the traditional family is neither natural nor vital, that it’s an antiquated social convention which has not only outlived its usefulness, but is now inherently discriminatory and repressive toward legitimate alternative ‘families.’”

Gee, thanks, Mr. Santorum. And while you seem to be in control of my thoughts, how about marching my body into the kitchen and making myself a sandwich? I'm getting kind of hungry. Unless, of course, you would like to relinquish control of my mind.

Given that Trump seems to be issuing a Presidential Executive Order every day, is there any need now for the US Congress? They seem to be very quiet on Trumps actions. Is the USA now a Dictatorship in all but name?

Of course the US should ban Syrians – remember how all the Jews fleeing Germany were a bit Nazi?

From an article by Mark Steel:-

Trump’s pace is so fast that if he keeps it up, by March he’ll have signed an executive order that burqas can only be worn if they’re filled with wasps, and whichever country comes last in Miss World has to have Piers Morgan as their king for a year as punishment, in a palace they have to pay for. Mosques will be demolished unless Islam installs a new prophet who has magical hair and ascends to heaven in a golden lift and smites his enemies by telling them they’re fired.

This would flow from his order that, to stop terrorism, no one is allowed to enter America if they come from any country deemed to be an Islamic terrorist state. The ban extends to people who fled those countries, but I suppose you have to be careful. Because when an Islamic terrorist government threatens to kill someone, a little bit of Islamic terrorism is bound to rub off on them, as Islamic terrorism is contagious. It was the same in the 1930s. If Trump had been around he’d have stopped any Jews escaping to the West, then we might have put a stop to Hitler.

The argument the Jihadists make is the West sees all Muslims as the enemy. The way to ensure that nonsense gets no support among Muslims is to ban everyone from Muslim countries from entering the country, on account of all Muslims being the enemy. To be fair Trump has made exceptions to his ban, such as Saudi Arabia. This must be because it’s a whole 15 years since anyone from that country knocked over any towers. The Saudi government also appears to provide oil and buys billions of dollars’ worth of weapons, so a cynic may suggest that makes a difference as well.

Although it's probably too early to judge yet, Trump in office is quietly rowing back on some of his more outlandish proclamations during the election campaign. Maybe the reality is that those famous "checks and balances" of the US Constitution are applying the brakes.

Trump’s lies are not the problem. It’s the millions who swallow them who really matter

From an article by Nick Cohen:-

Compulsive liars shouldn’t frighten you. They can harm no one, if no one listens to them. Compulsive believers, on the other hand: they should terrify you. Believers are the liars’ enablers. Their votes give the demagogue his power. Their trust turns the charlatan into the president. Their credulity ensures that the propaganda of half-calculating and half-mad fanatics has the power to change the world.

How you see the believers determines how you fight them and seek to protect liberal society from its enemies. Compulsive believers are not just rednecks. They include figures as elevated as the British PM and her cabinet. Before the EU referendum, a May administration would have responded to the hitherto unthinkable arrival of a US president who threatened NATO and indulged Putin by hugging Britain’s European allies close. But Brexit has thrown Britain’s European alliance into crisis. So English Conservative politicians must crush their doubts and believe with a desperate compulsion that the alleged ‘pragmatism’ of Trump will triumph over his undoubted extremism, a belief that to date has as much basis in fact as creationism.

Mainstream journalists are almost as credulous. After decades of seizing on the trivial gaffes and small lies of largely harmless politicians, they are unable to cope with the fantastic lies of the new authoritarian movements. When confronted with men who lie so instinctively they believe their lies as they tell them, they can only insist on a fair hearing for the sake of ‘balance’. Their acceptance signals to the audience the unbelievable is worthy of belief.

“History has much to teach us. But one of its lessons is its own limits. Things rarely repeat themselves. Just because Mr Trump’s lies and evasions bear some similarity to those of Richard Nixon, that doesn’t mean that we’re watching a repeat of Watergate.

Watergate, after all, has a happy ending of sorts; Nixon was undone by the scandal. His story is meant to reassure us that our system works, that the president is not above the law and that we have a functioning democracy. Maybe Trump will face a similar disgrace, but maybe not. Almost everything about the context is different: in 1974 there was no Fox News and similar propaganda outlets, and there were Republicans in Congress who cared more about democracy and the constitution than about tax cuts for wealthy donors.

What is the role of historians in the age of Trump? For one thing, they should take advantage of this media attention by dismantling facile analogies. Among their many ripe targets are the fashionable comparisons drawn between Trump and various foreign dictators of the past, above all Hitler and Mussolini. Again, similarities abound, like their jingoism and contempt for democratic institutions. But so do the dangers. Compared to Hitler, Trump looks less threatening than he actually is. Unlike Trump, European fascists were deeply ideological and would have despised his decadence and view of himself as a great dealmaker. And the story of Hitler and Mussolini is flattering to most Americans – we defeated them.

Ultimately, the most important thing historians can do is to leave the analogies to the pundits, and instead provide a critical, uncomfortable account of how we arrived at our seemingly incomprehensible current moment.”

Henry Ford apparently said, "All History is bunk!"Which probably says more about his motor cars than it does about our records of the past.It's evident of course that European history prior to the 16th. C was recorded by Monks, so tends to lend a distinctly religious cast to events. Our entire "knowledge" of the American continent of that time comes from Spanish and Portuguese adventurers.

Nevertheless, any speculation about the future of Donald Trump can only be that - speculation - since he is apparently a totally new phenomenon on the political scene. (Investors are told that the Past is no guide to the Future.) Certainly the current President of the USA seems to have broken completely with all previous tradition, so it's unhelpful to make predictions based upon earlier holders of that office. But we know enough of human nature to be sure that the tribe will usually eject a member whose rugged individuality threatens everyone else.

If only Trump were actually the problem - but in fact he is only a symptom (or maybe even just a sideshow to distract us from the actual problem) - behind Trump stand battalions of cleverer, nastier people

Mrs May is seeking sweeping executive rights known as Henry VIII powers to make changes to Britain’s regulatory regime at very short notice — and without full parliamentary scrutiny — once the outcome of Brexit talks are known.

Donald Trump has been blamed for the violent clashes between white supremacists and anti-fascist groups in Charlottesville by the mayor of the Virginia town.

Michael Signer said he was disappointed the white nationalists had descended on his town and said responsibility lay with Trump for inflaming racial prejudice during his presidential campaign last year.

Trump has repeatedly been accused of having stirred up racial tensions in the country through his rhetoric on immigrants and his vow to build a wall between the US and Mexico.

I had a rare day off today, so, instead of doing the rational thing (basking in the sunshine; walking the dogs; visiting a local beauty spot; getting my hair done) I chose instead to spend time finding out something more about what actually happened in Charlotteville.

I've read articles, looked at film, considered points of view on both sides of the issue, and finished by looking at an AlJazeera interview with an ex member of the FBI who had spent time under cover with white supremacist groups.

I've spent most of the day feeling physically sick - these people do exist, they do have a serious ideology, and a plan - and that orange freak has deliberately provided them with the oxygen of publicity and his tacit approval in order to create and consolidate his own power base.

The events I witnessed reminded me forcefully of everything I have read about the rise of Nazi Germany (sorry - Godwins Law - I know)

I think we should build a wall around the USA, and not let them out until they get rid of that embarrassing lump they have put in charge. The example set by the USA seems to be emboldening our own home-grown racists and I think we have to stop the rot.

I haven't posted links - sorry - just kept surfing from one piece to another and rather lost my way. If I can retrace my steps I may come back and share some of the material that has particularly struck me - but I'm sure you've all seen it.

I know racism is a growing problem in England - but I don't think we've yet got to the point where hundreds of proud racists can strut our streets, openly armed and bellowing racist chants - and I never want to get there